Reviews

Paul Schrader's version of Cat People is a movie that I've heard of, but never seen. After reading some of the reviews of the movie, I've decided to see on my own for the first time. I must say that I wasn't expecting a whole lot out of this movie because a lot of people who have seen it compared it to the original 1942 Val Lewton picture from RKO. Well, I was very impressed by this version of Cat People and I must say that it's a exceptionally well made, well acted psychological horror film.

Irena, (Nastassja Kinski), arrives in New Orleans, visiting her brother, Paul, (Malcolm McDowell), for the first time. As the movie begins, Schrader sets up the movie very well. Hundreds of years ago, the feline group of mysterious people, called the Cat People, have the ability to change into a black leopard after mating. Unknowable to Irena, Paul starts to develop a incestuous feeling toward her as in one scene, which is, one of the best scenes in the movie, he stalks her while she sleeps in his house for the first time.

Soon enough, Irena is given a job at the local zoo in New Orleans by Oliver Yates, (John Heard). Yates soon starts a relationship with Irena after he witnesses her watching a black leopard, roaming around its cage, milling for food. Irena doesn't tell Oliver about her family secret. Instead, the movie gets even better when Heard and Kinski start a relationship between the two while McDowell takes a turn of the worse, using his cat-like instinct to kill and prey on women, living in New Orleans.

Almost some of Paul Schrader's films walk a tightrope between sexual tensions. He never back away from that particular theme in Cat People. Schrader, as you may know, written the screenplay for Taxi Driver and also directed two feature films, Hardcore, which shares some of the same elements in this film and American Gigolo. His films are quite daring, but nevertheless, interesting and engaging.

Some people might look at this movie as a sleazy exploitation horror film. But, to the tell you the truth, it is not. This is a very good looking movie, with great cinematography, showcasing many colorful sets and sights in New Orleans. Some of the scenes are quite suspenseful, almost ranking up there with the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. The imagery that is used in this movie are very well shot and photographed. One scene that sums it up at all up is when Kinski witnesses a leopard, tearing out a zookeeper's arm. What makes that scene work is that Schrader cuts that with a shot of a pool of blood, running through Kinski's shoes and into a drain in the floor of the zoo. That's very well done, indeed. You can almost feel the darkness and mystery of the picture itself, thanks to the superb music score by Giorgio Moroder.

Nastassja Kinski, I think, steals the movie, away from John Heard and Malcolm McDowell. She is one of the most interesting and mysterious actresses I've ever seen. She provides the movie with a spice of eroticism that lights up the scenes. You can't talk your eyes off of her nor ignore her. She is really something in this movie. Unlike so many other female characters in horror movies, she gives Irena a mind of her own when she develops sexual feeling toward the two completely different men. That's very daring for a actress to do in the movies.

Cat People is a very scary horror film that's very well made by Paul Schrader and also scored very effectively by Giorgio Moroder. An very good movie for adults to see. ★★★ 1/2 3 1/2 stars.

Peter Weir's film about culture clash and an a mediation of violence in some of the most dangerous cities in America has culminated into a exciting, original, and even, powerful movie that I think is one of the most entertaining thrillers of the 1980's. That movie is, of course, Witness.

Harrison Ford plays a Philadelphia police detective who's assigned to investigate an murder witnessed by a 8 year old Amish boy. In the beginning of the movie, the little kid and his Amish mother, (Kelly McGillis), is on their way to visit the mother's sister in Philadelphia. Once the little boy witnessed and identified the person who's responsible for the murder of a policeman inside the train station's bathroom, Ford realizes that the boy and his mother are in danger of those who do know about the murder. After a short shootout inside a parking garage, Ford is forced to live among the Amish community in order to protect the boy and his mother. Soon enough, he starts to become one of them as he, at one point during the movie, raised a barn and even is greeted more kindly to the locals. But, it isn't long before the bad guys show up to interfere with Ford's relationship with the Amish locals.

The movie tells two stories. One is the murder story involving the little kid, which I mentioned above, and the other is a story of forbidden love. Ford and McGillis begins to show affections for the two of them and realized that their love for one another is banned due the Amish standards in the community. The most interesting scene that I like a lot is when, after Ford's character watches Gillis' character bathes alone and is surprised to see him, watching her, the two run into each other arms, confessing their love. Now, some people might think that this scene is corny. But, to tell you the truth, it is not. Their romance is very effective in this very well-told story.

Witness is one of the best thrillers, I think, of the 1980's. This is the kind of movie that Alfred Hitchcock would to make if he was still alive. Harrison Ford really does bring all his has into this movie. I was very impressed by how Ford was able to channel his action hero stardom into a more human character. His performance as John Book earned Ford his first and only Oscar nomination. He really deserved the nomination and it would've been something if he did win. Kelly McGillis is also riveting as the little boy's mother. Many people might think of her as a very sensitive person, when in doubt, her character really wants to break out of her culture and into the open world where she wouldn't have to follow in the local standards.

I also want to give credit to some of the other actors involved in this movie, including Danny Glover, who plays one of the cops that is involved in the murder and Lukas Haas as the little kid. Haas is, like Ford and McGillis, really does a very good job of portraying Samuel as a kid who's not like any other child actor that I ever saw. I believed him as Samuel from the moment we see him at the Philadelphia train station in the beginning of the movie. We can't really take our eyes off this character and either the other two mentioned above, but that what makes Witness all the more enjoyable. This is a great thriller. See it if you haven't seen it already. ★★★★ 4 stars.

When Alfred Hitchcock died in 1980, there was only one person that could take over for the thriller genre. And that was Brian De Palma. De Palma, at this point in his career, was already making movies since the early 1970's. So far, he's made 3 feature length movies, including Sisters, from 1973, Carrie, from 1976 and Obsession, which was also released around the same year Carrie was released. Now, he brings an brand new thriller to the table.

Dressed to Kill is an exceptionally well made Hitchcockian thriller that's filled with erotic charged imagery and well-written characters that make the movie work well. Angie Dickinson plays a sexually frustrated housewife who can't seem to find satisfaction in her life. Her teenage son, (Keith Gordon), is a science geek who can't seem to fit in with his mother since his father left them for another woman. Dickinson's character even visits a local psychiatrist in New York City, played by Michael Caine. At first, Dickinson tries seducing him, but it fails. That night, after visiting a stranger in a museum, she decides to stay with him for the night. But, as soon as the night is over, she's brutally murdered in a elevator by a tall, blonde, woman, wielding a straight razor.

While all of this is going on, an call girl, (Nancy Allen), is questioned by the police since she witnessed the murder right in front of her. Meanwhile, the son wants revenge on his mother's murder. So, he and the call girl decides to track down the killer whatever means necessary.

Like other Brian De Palma's thrillers, Dressed to Kill renders on the Hitchcockian genre. The murder scene reminds us of the shower scene in Psycho with its portrayal of shock and awe, but what's interesting about this film is that it doesn't rip off that famous scene. What I expected out of Brian De Palma's other works is that he simply takes several Hitchcock's films and flips on its head. Even though there're several plot holes in this movie, I enjoyed the style more than the story.

As for the performances, Michael Caine does a good job, playing Dickinson's therapist. As for Angie Dickinson, she particularly steals the movie by giving us a very good performance as the troubled housewife. What I like also about Dressed to Kill is that Dickinson doesn't seem to be playing a helpless victim in this movie. Various people protest about the violence against women in this movie. But, to make things very clear, this movie is a lot more better than a dozen of slasher movies. This is an enjoyable thriller that does have a lot of style, but for the story, it does suffered a slight bump in the road for me. The music score by Pino Donaggio is quite splendid and beautiful at the same time. As I watching this movie, I could see that De Palma was trying so hard to make this movie closer to a Hitchcockian thriller and to tell you the truth, he does succeeds. Not only for this movie, but for another movie that he made four years later after this one, Body Double. With the pieces almost fitting together, Dressed to Kill is an frightening, erotic thriller with style and substance. ★★★ 1/2 3 1/2 stars.

Brian De Palma is not one of my favorite directors. At least not in a long shot. But, his films are very good, if not, great or good. Frequently, most of his movies are focus on some of the concepts that were conceived from the films of Alfred Hitchcock. In the film Obsession, De Palma takes on Hitchcock once again after making his third feature film, Sisters, which was released three years ago.

In 1959, Michael Courtland, (Cliff Robertson), an wealthy New Orleans businessman, is celebrating his 10th wedding anniversary with his beautiful wife, Elizabeth, (Genevieve Bujold). But, as the night ends, his life is about to turn upside down. Kidnappers have took his wife and his daughter, Amy. The kidnappers demanded Michael to pay the ransom. He does come up with the money. But, the kidnapping ends in tragedy when his wife and daughter are killed in a car explosion.

Fast forward to 1975. Courtland and his business partner, (John Lithgow), travel to Florence to look at a job. Courtland is still grieving about the loss of his dead wife and daughter. At Florence, he visits the same church that he and Elizabeth got married. Inside the church, he finds out that the person working inside the church is his dead wife! But, how did she survived the explosion in 1959?

A lot of critics complained that Obsession is a complete rip off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, Vertigo. But, there's a catch. Rip offs are done in a poor taste to be failure. Obsession is not a rip off of Hitchcock's Vertigo. But certainly, Brian De Palma does know how to shoot a well made mystery thriller. This is a man who loves movie-making. And like his other movies such as Dressed to Kill and Blow Out, he knows how to shoot certain scenes that build suspense or create tension between characters. Characters that we are interested in watching.

The movie isn't a great one, but it is worth seeing if you are a fan of De Palma or fans of Hitchcockian thrillers. Cliff Robertson does a good job of playing the grief stricken Michael as well as a man infatuated by his wife. There even several good scenes where Michael seems to follow his wife around Florence. What makes those scenes work and maybe the entire movie work is that the music score by Bernard Herrmann is very appropriate to empathizes the sorrow and mystery of Michael's obsession. He is a man of certainty and will follow his mind and especially his heart by solving this complicated mystery that ends in a unexpected manner. I won't reveal to you how it all ends. See it for yourself.

Another person who should receive credit and someone who I really think stole the movie from Robertson and Lithgow is Genevieve Bujold. I really like her in this movie as Robertson's wife. She is not like any other movie actress I saw. Her character is played as a smart and intelligent woman who uses her wit and her charm to move the movie's story along. She also have a way of bringing the movie to life and propelling us into this mystery.

This is a good stylish thriller that does have some double crosses and twists. De Palma uses his style of filmmaking to make the movie works on a technical level. On a storytelling level, it does have little plot holes. But, De Palma is able to deliver a strong thriller that does works so beautifully and mysteriously. ★★★ 3 stars.

In the 1970's, disaster movies took a toll on American cinema. New Hollywood directors were already starting to make movies that they wanted to see. Directors such as Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Brian De Palma, Bob Rafelson and others were making movies that would launch them into stardom. Disaster movies also launch people into stardom. But, one particular director did get recognition for his body of work in the 1970's by creating some of the best disaster movies of all time. His name? Irwin Allen.

Allen was a producer who's nickname was the "Master of Disaster". One of his earliest motion pictures was Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea in 1961. Because "Voyage" was a big hit in 1961, Allen decides to make movies and by the early 70's, he hit the jackpot. By 1972, The Poseidon Adventure was one of the high-grossing movies at that time. It took a while to get the movie off the ground. And doing so wasn't a easy task.

The movie tells the story of a luxury ocean liner called the S.S Poseidon, en route from New York to Athens. Among the many passengers on the S.S Poseidon are: Reverand Scott (Gene Hackman), policeman Mike Rogo, (Ernest Borgnine), an shy and meek bachelor, (Red Buttons), an elderly Jewish couple, (Jack Alberton and Shelly Winters), and a brother and sister, (Pamela Sue Martin and Eric Shea). All of these characters aboard the S.S Poseidon are celebrating New Year's Eve that night.

Just after midnight, the ship's crew and passengers's celebration soon came to a stop when a 90 foot tidal wave, capsizing the ship, sending the passengers, crashing down on what used to be the ship's ceiling. Once the ship capsizes, the remaining survivors must race against time as the liner starts to fill with water. Along the way, the few remaining passengers must work their way toward the engine room in order to escape. The obstacles that they have to cross are the hot and steamy kitchen, the flooded smokestack, claustrophobic vents and pipes and underwater passageways.

The Poseidon Adventure is based on a best-selling novel by Paul Gallico. Gallico based his novel on a incident he had on the RMS Queen Mary. The movie though is not excellent nor four-star material. But, it does work for a few reasons. One of them is the visual effects. The F/X are very convincing and very exciting as the ship capsizes although in some exterior shots of the ship, it looks at as if the makers of the movie used a miniature ship instead of a real ship. What I like about The Poseidon Adventure is the sheer camp style of the movie itself. Disaster movies are not really movies that you would overpraise because of the number of stars that they used, but what does makes sense is that they are equivalently exciting as a popcorn movie. This is one of those films where even though today, it looks dated, it can still be enjoyed and still be loved for a very long time.

The performances though, aren't really Oscar caliber. Hackman at that time in 1972, had already won the Oscar for The French Connection. I wonder why he would signed on to a picture like this. Ernest Borgnine holds the second best-remembered performance in the movie as the grumpy and profane policeman, who's wife is a prostitute. Even some of the supporting cast like Red Buttons, Stella Stevens, Pamela Sue Martin and even Lesile Neilson as the captain does their best to back up the two leading stars.

The art direction and set design of the ship is very convincing and very well-done. Even when the ship capsizes, I could tell that the set design was sort of bearing down on some of the actors because of the damages on the costumes.

The Poseidon Adventure was the earliest template of what a disaster movie should have. In order to make one successful, you would to round up the best actors that we have in the industry and have them play interesting or no interesting characters and have them either escape though a sinking ship or escape from a burning building. Now, of course, you might say to yourselves, "Isn't that a bad idea?" "Is it a bad idea to have actors do as much physical work instead of acting?" Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But what does come out of it is that disaster movies are basically plugged in plots and characters. The Poseidon Adventure is the perfect example. On a level of camp, it works. But as a spectacular motion picture, it doesn't work. The reason why is that because disaster movies, in my opinion, don't need to exceed excellence. A few examples of bad disaster movies that I think failed to excite me or intrigue me are The Hindenburg, When Time Ran Out, Earthquake, Aiport 1975, Airport '77 and The Concorde: Aiport '79.

After the success of The Poseidon Adventure, Allen continue to work throughout the 1970's. His next big-budget disaster movie was The Towering Inferno, released in 1974. In my opinion, both The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno are probably the two best disaster movies of this particular era. After those two, I don't think Irwin Allen would repeat the same for his other pictures that he produced. His last two pictures were When Time Ran Out in 1980 and The Swarm in 1978. Both films were disaster movies that failed. By that time, disaster movies had ran out of ideas by the early 1980's. But The Poseidon Adventure didn't ran out of ideas for Allen. ★★★ 3 stars.

In 1969, Jack Nicholson was already starting out in the movie industry. He had just done several motion pictures, starring in supporting roles. Some of them were the original Little Shop of Horrors and Easy Rider. Audiences by 1969 already knew who he was and what he stands for. In Easy Rider, he played a drunken Southern lawyer with a good heart, who hitched a ride with Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda on their motorcycle trip. But in 1970, Nicholson took on a role that would propel him not only toward the Academy Awards, but to movie audiences again with his leading role in Five Easy Pieces.

In Five Easy Pieces, Nicholson plays Robert "Bobby" Dupea, a man who's a oil rigger at day and a free-wheeler at night. He spends much of his time in the oil fields and goes in and out of motels and bowling alleys with friends at night. Earler in his life, he was a piano prodigy and was raised by his parents who admired piano-playing. But, times have change. Nowadays, Dupea works constantly, trying to make his life better by sticking to his job. His friends encourages him to live the good life. But, to Bobby's point of view, his words isn't getting him nowhere. His girlfriend, (Karen Black), does her best to keep him out of trouble, but her relationship with Bobby soon start to crumble as his lifestyle of free-wheeling grows too much for her to handle. One day, Dupea receives word from his mother that his father had suffered two strokes and as a result, can't talk nor walk anymore. Devastated, Bobby decides to take his girlfriend to Puget Sound, which is in British Columbia. Along the way, they pick up two lebsian hitchhikers, who joined them on their ride to Washington. Little while on, Bobby drops them off and continue on with his trip. Once Dupea gets to Puget Sound, he tries to make amends to his deserted family, but realizes that it might be too late.

Nicholson gives, what I think, a stand-out performance. Here's a character who is very different from the other characters that he would portrayed in his later films. Dupea is a angry, young man who doesn't know what he wants out of life. Another thing to point about Nicholoson's character is the dedication of the blue-collar worker. The movie illustrates a certain time frame in America, where anguish and rebellion were common. Nicholson was the right actor to play this person. The director or even the screenwriters would've thought that by casting an younger actor into this picture might make the audience identify with this person.

There's one classic scene that explains entirely the attitude of Nicholson's character. At a diner that is located on a interstate highway, Nicholoson tries to order a breakfast with a substitution. When he can't get what he wanted, he goes out of his way to get exactly what he wants. That scene, while it's classic in every way, tells us that this character is a man who will not obey the rules to society and will do whatever he wants to do. Even with Nicholoson playing out that scene with Karen Black and the two hitchhikers. I think it is clear that no other actor would've play out that scene if it wasn't for Nicholoson's anger. that's why I think he was one of the biggest emerging stars in Hollywood at that time. He is a actor that will do things differently and opposite and as soon as he changes the game, he can be satisfied with what he wants.

Besides Nicholson, Karen Black does a terrific job, playing Nicholoson's dim-witted waitress girlfriend. For her character to work, she acts like an attachment to Dupea. She is sort of the glue that sticks and keeps together the relationship. But as the film progresses on, we sense early on that their relationship might not last for long. Even after watching this movie for the first time, I got a sense that the running theme of loneliness that applies directly toward the Karen Black's character. In the beginning of the movie, she is alone in her house while Bobby is working on the oil fields. In the end, she finds herself alone again, except that it would probably means that this will be the last time.

For me, examining cinema has been a favorite of mine. Movies from the 70's were really about the 70's themselves. After seeing Five Easy Pieces, I knew that this movie would open up the gates of New Hollywood. because of that, new directors especially Bob Rafelson, who directed directed this movie, had the ability to direct what he wanted to see. I feel as if with the upcoming movies that came later in the 1970's, movie audiences were seeing flesh and blood characters being portrayed on the big screen. I might sound like the kind of guy that said that they make don't movies like this anymore, but in the case of Five Easy Pieces, that's an exception. ★★★★ 4 stars.

There are a number of actors that can give a performance everyone can agree on. Some of the best performances are the ones that aren't well-known to the Academy. In addition, an performance must convince the audience and insure us that the actor is willing to expand his or her character to desperate measures. Paul Newman is one of those actors who doesn't take any chances when it comes to acting out his roles. And in The Verdict, his performance is outstanding.

Newman plays Frank Galvin, a once-promising Boston lawyer who just lost four cases in the last three years. His addiction to alcohol has increase over the years. He tries to make amends to clients that he doesn't know and his best friend, Mickey (Jack Warden), is just had enough of his losing streak. All of a sudden, Galvin is given a last chance at a big moneymaker case. The case is a malpractice one and the client want to take the case to trial. With the help of Mickey, Galvin manages to put together the trial. But, another lawyer, (James Mason), is willing to take part in the trial, too. With the two opposing sides working their way toward the trial, an woman, (Charlotte Rampling), falls in love with Galvin. To matters worse, Galvin's star witness disappeared before the trial and the doctor that Galvin appointed to doesn't have any prior knowledge of the case. As soon the problems start to mound on Frank's shoulders, it soon becomes clear that the odds are stack against him. The question will be: Can Galvin pull himself together to make things right for himself and for the people around him?

Paul Newman has never given a better performance than this. In my opinion, I wish that the Academy would give him the Oscar for his performance in this movie. He really convince me to believe that his character is not going to win the case. But yet, the people want him to do the right thing. His character is on the cuff of self- destruction. Basically, he is surrounded by a world that's filled with manipulation. Not only to himself, but to his peers. When the movie creates several drawbacks on the case, I started to realize more often that the movie is going to pull a fast one on me. What's surprising is that the movie pulls a fast one on it's itself when it does the reaches the climax.

The supporting cast is absolutely wonderful. Jack Warden should've been nominated for a Oscar for his portrayal of Mickey. He is the last person that Newman wants to deal with. James Mason is also excellent as Newman's opponent. His character along with the others are strong in appeal because we, as the audience get a sense that Mason is going to win this case because he has a bigger team than Newman and Warden. Just as I mention above, the movie pulls a fast one on itself once again.

David Mamet, who is a playwright author have written a brilliant screenplay. The dialogue is sharp, crisp, and explicit with meaning. When the characters begin to talk in the court and outside the court, you can hear these people talk the way they are meant to talk. The language is striking with the characters judging each with knowledge. Mamet's script is read like a book. Each scene is like a page in a book, with new and rich dialogue. These characters are believable and plausible because they are city-people with city lives.

There's a lot to be said about the themes in The Verdict. One of those significant themes is redemption and manipulation. Throughout the entire movie, Galvin is trying to rebuild his reputation as a good lawyer. Meanwhile, Mason's character is also trying to rebuild the case on his terms. The end product is something extraordinary. There's are several moments when Galvin trembles in fear because he dreads for the worst to come. His anxiety gets the worst because he fears for his identity as a lawyer. Toward the end of the movie, Newman give a beautiful written speech toward the court and jury about having justice in their hearts. That's the one thing I'll never forget that scene. Newman doesn't play out his character. He acts it out. That's why I think his performance is award-winning. He acts in desperation as the character. You see it in his face that's he's acting as Frank Galvin. ★★★★ 4 stars.

Leonard Shelby, (Guy Pearce), is a insurance investigator. He suffers from a condition that isn't short-term memory loss. Right before he lost his memory, his wife was killed by someone. He doesn't know who. But, he wants revenge. With the help of his memory condition and the notes tattooed on his arms, legs and body, Leonard is determined to figure out who killed his wife.

That's the set-up for Memento. This is a well made neo-noir thriller that plays with us by seeing through the eyes of a man who's determination only makes his investigation more superior. The movie is told through two story-lines. One story-line is told in black and white and the other is told in color. Director Christopher Nolan, who also serves as a screenwriter for this movie, challenges us to follow this mystery through two story-lines. The black and white scenes illustrates the story in chronological order. The color scenes takes place in reverse. As we watch this story unfold, Nolan reveals more and more of the mystery as he lets us get to know the facts before shifting gears.

Most thrillers today are jam-packed with predictable story-lines and endings. Memento is the complete opposite. This movie doesn't do any of those. Instead, what we have here is a complicated story about a complicated man. A man who's grief and guilt drives him through his investigation. That why Leonard is so important in this movie. Rather than showing us a straight-forward mystery with the clues being brought up in a linear story, Memento reveals clues from a non-linear story. This is the kind of movie that tells us a story that is based on a Hitchcockian level, but only in the 21st century. Without giving away too much of the ending, the conclusion is very effective in both wit and suspense.

The original story for this movie came from Christopher Nolan's younger brother, Johnathan. The movie is full of great performances by Guy Pearce and also from Joe Pantoliano. Pearce has been involved in the neo-noir genre before with L.A. Confidential. Unlike his role in that movie, Pearce brings out the grief in some of the movie's quiet scenes. There's are several moments during the movie where he lets us sympathizes with him while he copes with his condition. I thought that in those scenes, the movie stops short to shows us how Leonard feels about not remembering who he is and what he is. At that point, I felt pretty bad that he has to live with this condition and also solve his wife's murder.

I have seen good neo-noirs in my life. But, Memento is a rarity. You don't see movies like these being made everyday. As the audience, we are taken into the mind of a very confusing man. And when we learn about the facts, we sometimes feel as if we ourselves are spinning our heads because we can't keep up with this plot. That is what I like about movies. A lot of the great thrillers that we've seen over the years have made us think about ourselves as ordinary everyday people. It's movies like Memento that makes us think differently with ourselves so that we are caught up at the moment. This is a top-notch thriller that really deserves credibility for its story structure and the editing. This is a must-see. ★★★★ 4 stars.

While I was watching All That Jazz, I was reminded of a quote that Howard Hawks said. Hawks said that in order to make a good movie, you must have 3 good scenes and no bad scenes. Bob Fosse's All That Jazz has, what I believe, three good scenes and no bad scenes. However, the move itself has a depressing mood to it, which is similar or not with Fosse's other works like Cabaret and Sweet Charity.

The movie centers around a deeply troubled dance choreographer, (Roy Scheider), who spends most of his life dedicated to his work in the theater. Yet, outside his life, his wife, (Ann Reinking), and his daughter are seeing himself fall into a world of self-destruction. Scheider is trying to create a Broadway show called "Airotica", which will debuted in the beginning of February. Scheider's character is a drug addict and cigarette-smoking womanizer, who tries to do the best he can by putting on a show. But, as he begins to put the show together, his life starts to take a turn for the worse. Edited in between the movie are moments when Scheider speaks to an angelic woman, (Jessica Lange), about his troubles and his virtues.

The movie is torn apart by its portrayal of a man that is not only falling under the spell of self-destruction, but also falling into a near-death experience. This creates the movie's depressing tone, yet it does make us feel bad that Scheider is hurting himself more and more as he feeds his life and heart into his production. Toward the end of the movie, without giving much more away, the main character finds exactly what he is looking for. Like most of Fosse's work, this movie centers around the dark side of show business. What Fosse shows us in this movie is his own vision of his life in the showbiz industry. We understand fully throughout the movie that for all of the razzle and dazzle specialty that this movie has to offer, there's a dark undercurrent lying underneath the movie.

The three scenes that I think makes the movie worth watching are when Scheider shows his agents his idea of the show and he lets the female and male dance performers do the number, which is called "Take Off with Us (Reprise). That scene is so energetic that as the scene went on with the dancers moving their bodies suggestively in the light and especially in the dark, I realize that Fosse's direction creates much of the scene's energetic mood. The movement of the hands. The way the female dancer move to the left and right of the room. The scene oozes with a sense of extreme sexuality that we get completely lost in a world that is showered by movement and energy. That is one of the three scenes that I like in the movie.

The second scene that I like so much is when Scheider's lover and daughter dances in his apartment. The musical number in this scene is called "Everything Old is New Again." I thought that of all of the scenes that were in the movie, this one was probably the best one in the movie. That scene is so well shot by Fosse and so well choreographed that it breaks through the depressing mood of the story. That's why the movie works for me. It has that ability to breaks through the depression and somehow feeds us a happy moment in the movie. Not only happy and jubilant, but also tragic.

The third scene that I also like was when Scheider is shooting his own production number and like the scene that I mention before, his lover and his daughter also appear in this scene too. The wife and daughter do a number together, called "After You've Gone". The three scenes for me illustrates how much life and also feeling is being into this musical. Unlike Grease, which came out before this film, All That Jazz draws a tragic, downbeat and depressing tone to the musical genre. It also leaks sexuality since a lot of the numbers in this movie especially the rehearsal scene are very sexy.

Roy Scheider give a outstanding performance as the main character. For a while, Scheider has been remembered as playing the police chief in Jaws or playing Gene Hackman's police partner in The French Connection. His performance make us want to care for him even though his response to the audience and to the supporting characters in the movie is ignored. This is a man who is walking on fire. He doesn't whether he makes it or not. I think what Bob Fosse shows us in this movie is that show business isn't about the stars and the razzle and dazzle. Showbiz can have a dark side, too. ★★★ 1/2 3 1/2 stars.

The opening scene of Westworld sets up the movie very nicely, with its idea of commercialism and consumerism as a group of vacationing tourists are given the chance to talk about their experiences at the many different theme parks that were available. There are a variety of different theme parks that the tourists can go to. One is called Medieval World, which takes place in ancient history. There's Roman World, where the people there are dressed up in period clothing. And then there's Westworld. Westworld is a tourist attraction that takes place in 1880.

Everything inside is monitored by the computers and their programmers. But, what's interesting is that the people inside are actually robots. Not just any robots, but genetically programmed robots that can interact with the tourists. At first, everything seems to be okay for now. But, as the tourists become more involved in their daily life inside these theme parks, their vacations are about to take a turn for the worst. After noticing some slight malfunctions on the robots, the scientists behind the theme parks realize that the robots are going haywire. It doesn't take long for the scientists to realize that the robots are starting to terrorize the tourists, scaring them by going on a killing spree.

The story of Westworld was written by critically acclaimed sci-fi author Michael Crichton. Crichton took a directing credit as well. His vision of the theme parks are very well done and has some very impressive art direction. But, what I think Crichton would've done in this movie is to cut back on some of the scenes since the movie has a very interesting story. Not only interesting, but serious about what would happened if there was a possible malfunction inside one of the theme parks. Crichton has explored this kind of story in his works such as Jurassic Park. where, In that story, genetically engineered dinosaurs were the main villains. Here, there is only one great villain. Yul Brynner plays the villain in this movie and he definitely delivers his most chilling performance in a long time. In the movie, he plays a western gunslinger, who's preys upon the local tourists, (Richard Benjamin and James Brolin), who are just trying to stay alive while vacationing at Westworld. Brynner's performance really did convinces me that he didn't have to overload on acting like a robot. All he had to do is act with a straight face and especially narrows his glaring eyes toward his victims.

Two other objections that I have to the movie is the screenplay, which was written by Crichton himself. The script is somehow standardized, with the human characters saying a lot of standard sci-fi dialogue, especially when Richard Benjamin's character is being chased toward the end of the movie by Brynner's character. That scene is one of the many problems with Westworld. Those scenes in particular, including the barroom fight in Westworld hurt the picture, slightly. But, it doesn't hurt the hardware of the movie. The design of the robots and the special effects are truly amazing and dazzling. I love how the technicians have to repair the robots overnight and have them ready to go in the morning. The set-up of the theme parks are very well done and very well-directed by Crichton.

Despite some slow patches and plot holes, Westworld is a joy to watch in wonder and fascination. The art direction is very well done and also interesting. Brynner's character is very terrifying in the movie and even his performance makes him more believable. One thing that I admired about the performance by Yul Brynner and also the supporting actors who plays the androids is that they didn't have to act ridiculous to play a robotic character. All they have to do is wait on their cue and play it out straight. There is no need to act strict and straight up. As for the human characters, I wish Crichton would've done a better job of making his human characters believable just like the robots themselves. I didn't think he put a lot of emphasis on those people, but I simply enjoy what Crichton did for the androids and the hardware.

Westworld is no 2001. But, as a enjoyment, it certainly works on a entertainment level. It doesn't go for cheap thrills and it certainly doesn't go for bad laughs.It is just simply good. ★★★ 3 stars.

Billy Hayes was just an American, trying to get home to his family. He and his girlfriend were vacationing in Turkey for a while. But, Billy decided to smuggle hashish out of the country. Before he boards the plane, he is stopped by the Turkish airport police and is caught with the hashish, strapped onto his stomach and body.

This is only the beginning of a story that is filled with spellbinding terror and sheer bravery. Midnight Express tells that kind of story. The movie is based on the real-life Billy Hayes, who was caught smuggling hashish across the border from Turkey. Risking his life and his dignity, he tries to escape from the authorities, but fails. Knowing that he will face the consequences, Hayes is sentenced to prison for 4 years. In those 4 years, Hayes suffers through a series of unflinching, excruciating torture. When his parole is denied, Billy decides to escape from prison with the help of two other fellow prisoners.

The movie has an amazing array of great performances by Brad Davis, who plays Billy Hayes, and also John Hurt as the Englishman, who's befriends Hayes during his prison sentence. Randy Quaid also plays a supporting role in the movie as Hayes' other fellow prisoner. Quaid is spectacular, showing us that his star power is expanding since his supporting role in The Last Detail.

The only performance that I really cared a lot was Brad Davis. Davis is a newcomer in the film industry at that time during the making of this movie and he is very convincing as Billy Hayes. Whenever he was placed under such extreme violence, I cared more about his survival and especially his willingness to escape from this hellish prison. Since Davis is new to all of us, that's very important to the movie because it creates authenticity for the story. If Davis was not cast in the movie, then the movie would've never been effective as it is now. Most movies tend to star big-name actors because the director or producer thinks that we can relate to these big-name stars as realistic characters. Sometimes that does worked. But, here, the acting is very effective and honest.

The music score by Giorgio Moroder is also effective since the music doesn't have a triumphant orchestral feeling to the movie. Moroder's score illustrates a world that's filled with danger and hostility. His synthesized music score is well done and like the acting, it brings something new to the table. When audiences listen to certain music scores in movies, they tend to listen to something that can coincides with the look of the movie. Here, the score is played directly toward the audience's involvement. Imagine if you were put inside this movie. This score would never been done if it wasn't for the acting and also, the story.

Midnight Express takes us into a world where the only thing that can keep you alive in a world of hurt is bravery. Some people might think that sympathizing with Billy Hayes is something that we all can't do. What I say to that is place yourself in this environment. How would you feel if you had to undergo such extreme torture? What would you do? Would you escape? Or would you embraced the harsh brutality of human despair? That's what makes Midnight Express great. It's honest about human nature. Hayes isn't just a typical movie hero. He is a everyday person who's makes the fatal mistake of smuggling drugs. His story is so emotional and shattering that we really understand what he's going through. The movie is played for sympathy. We can care for him or despise him for his actions. But, the true heart of the story is the willingness to move on and go where your instincts tells you.

One thing that I would like to say is I didn't care about was the representation of Turks as being bad people. I know that isn't true. Similar to The Deer Hunter, where the critics blasted it for portraying the Vietnamese as killers and racists, Midnight Express tells a honest story about human nature in a sub-ordinate environment. People do get hurt both physically and emotionally by other people. Just because they hurt people doesn't make them bad people. The movie isn't just a routine prison movie. The movie is about a human story. This is the same set-up with The Deer Hunter. It isn't just a war story. It's a human story. That is a big misunderstanding.

The violence in Midnight Express is not glorified in any way. The scenes that showed the torture is very well-directed by Alan Parker. Parker, at certain times during the movie, cuts away from the brutal sadistic activities. With his idea of turning away from the violence, we can actually see what it would look like. But, I'm glad he didn't overboard with the torture scenes. I know that people might think that the scenes involving the violence is too much to handle. Some might say that it's over the top. I believe that the violence illustrates the Turkish prison as Hell. It paints a unhappy world of cruel people who do inhumane activities to others. Yet, it isn't glorification. It's honesty. And that what makes this movie worth watching. It's the craftsmanship of what movies are all about. ★★★★ 4 stars.

The compliment of a thriller is not only have you grabbing onto your seat during the entire time you are watching a thriller, but does the movie work for you? Klute is one of those movies that did it for me. This is a very atmospheric thriller at its best. It has some of the best actors in it. It is handled with extreme care from a director that really does know how to make a thriller work. And it is very well written with rich and sharp dialogue.

Jane Fonda plays Bree Daniels. She's a struggling woman, trying to live a double life. In the daytime, she's a person, struggling to be an actress or a model. At night or during her free time, she's a call girl. Donald Sutherland plays John Klute, the title character. He's a small town detective who's assigned to look for a man that went missing for a couple of months. His only hope is Bree. But, one thing stands in their way. There's a anonymous man, stalking Bree. On several occasions, she gets a telephone call at night and when she picks up the phone, she can hear nothing. Most of the time, she can hear the man breathing through the phone. Knowing that she's in danger, Klute decides to protect Bree from the pervert who has already killed two women. There's isn't really any background information on the killer. But, one thing is for sure. The man that is stalking Bree is a lot closer than she thinks.

In my opinion, the movie is more focused on Bree rather than Klute. I believe the movie's title should have been called "Bree", instead of Klute. Because after all, the movie does a very good job creating a slice of life feeling of Bree. She is alone and also desperate since she lives a double life, both as a prostitute and as a single woman. Her pimp, (Roy Scheider), is a lowlife who gives little to no information on Klute's investigation. But even though this is Bree's show, Klute soon starts to care and also falls in love with her. The relationship between the two lead actors is a very interesting aspect to the story. We really do sympathizes with these characters because we know that they are in danger of being seen or stalked.

The movie has a uneasy atmospheric feeling to it, especially in one scene, where Sutherland's character hears noises on Bree's roof and he goes to check it out and notice just how dark this movie is lit. It is almost as if the dark is use as a camouflage to the killer. While I was watching that scene, I realize that I was grabbing onto the edge of my seat, trying to figure out what is going happened. It's that kind of feeling that I get from thrillers that make them so watchable. The director, Alan J. Pakula, certainly knows how to keep his audience at ease with the growing sense of dread. It is not at all predictable. There are terrifying shots of a hand, squeezing onto a chain-linked fence. And when I saw those shots, I held onto my breath in suspense.

Jane Fonda has never given an better performance than this. She definitely deserves winning the Oscar for Best Actress that year. I truly believe in her character's willingness to be a victim of being stalked. I like how Pakula is able to have a strong actress played Bree because in the best thrillers of this kind, the stronger actress is, the more believable the character is. Fonda is perhaps, the most strongest actress out there that can really tackle this role. I was amazed just how real her character was. In addition to that, I also want to give Donald Sutherland credit for playing the title character. He is sort of a protector for Bree. He is also trying to fit in with the culture aspects of New York City. You might think that the back half of the story is a fish out of water story. But it isn't. The two lead actors are very good together and their stories are very well written with authenticity.

Pakula certainly does know to photographed New York City very vividly. With the help of cinematographer Gordon Willis, these two can really bring New York City to life with its location settings. The way the city looks at night. The way the lighting is inside one of the nightclubs that Bree goes into. The movie captures what the early 1970's look like. People back then can go into these clubs and there were interracial relationships inside these place and even outside. That entire look really illustrates what New York City was back in the early 70's, with its portrayal of urban landscape.

Going back to Fonda's character, I love the scenes where she goes to her therapist and she talks about her relationship with Klute. Those scenes are skillfully written with realism. People might think that those scenes were thrown in to describe just how desperate Bree is in life. I object that statement. Those scenes are the best parts in this movie. Aside the thriller aspects involving the killer stalking Fonda's character, I was amazed by how open she is toward the audience and it isn't done because it has to be done. It is there to give more about what Fonda's character is all about. That creates more of a slice of life feeling to Bree. It is rare to find that kind of creation in a thriller like this one.

With a suspenseful score by Michael Small, Klute is one thriller that will stay with you as long as you admired it for what it is. It is certainly a film where characters are locked up in a world where the coldness of the real world will keep them inside for good. ★★★ 1/2 3 1/2 stars.

In the opening scene of The Last Boy Scout, the movie starts off with a series of unexpected violence with a pro football player shooting himself in the head at close range. Now why did that happen? According to a unknown source, the player knows for a fact that he isn't going to score an touchdown and therefore, ends up blowing his brains out on the field.

Cut to the early morning. Joe Hallenbeck, (Bruce Willis), is resting in his car when suddenly a couple of street punks decide to drop a dead squirrel in his car. The punks think Joe has fallen for the trick, but he proves them wrong. Hallenbeck's job is a private detective. His main job is to protect an stripper, (Halle Berry), who has been receiving threats from someone. Who is that sending those threats? Hallenbeck doesn't know. His investigation deepens when he encounters the stripper's boyfriend, (Damon Wayans), an disgraced quarterback who was kicked out of the game because of his drug abuse. After the quarterback's girlfriend is shot to death, the duo decides to investigates together. But that isn't going to be easy. At first, they trade insults between the two of them. Later on, they realize that they need one another to continue their investigation.

The story of The Last Boy Scout is not at all original, however. The reason why is because it was written by the screenwriter who wrote Lethal Weapon 1 and 2. When I first heard of the plot of this movie, I immediately thought of Lethal Weapon. The plot of the movie leads the two completely different strangers into much more bigger things. Their clues leads them to the world of sports gambling, make that, illegal sports gambling. Among the bad guys in the movie is a character named Milo, (Taylor Negron), who is perhaps the most despicable of them all.

From the looks of it, I have seen The Last Boy Scout several times over the last 4 years and all I can say is that my criticism is the same as it was 4 years ago. There are several good moments in the movie, but most of them come from the thrilling action sequences. There are a number of great stunts in the movie such as the finale where one character is hanging off a light tower while hanging onto a chain linked barrier. That some good stuff. There is a level of humor in the movie and those come from the funny jokes that Willis and Wayans mentioned in the movie.

However, I was very concerned about the structure of the movie. I've said before that this is not a original movie and I guess it shouldn't be. But I felt that the dialogue should have been tone down because the movie littered with four letter words and sometimes twelve letter words. Most of the profanity comes from Willis' daughter, (Danelle Harris), who, in one particular scene, squares off against her father to see who can say the most bad words. Besides that, I also noticed the atmosphere of the movie, which is very mean-spirited and at certain times, unpleasant. That kind of atmosphere comes into place when we first meet Willis and Wayans. The way they talk to one another is sometimes funny. I have to admit that I did laugh at some of their bickering. But, the problem is that the way Willis and Wayans treated the women in their lives is very cruel. There's a subplot involving Willis' wife having an affair with someone else. On the other side, Wayans treats his stripper girlfriend very cruelly. I supposed there's a reason to all this.

The violence in this movie is pretty bloody and like the language, I wish the editor of the movie would tone down the violence because I felt at certain times, it border on the unnecessary kind. Shane Black, who wrote the script for the movie was paid an hefty price for the script and I supposed the script would have to be pretty popular to made into a formula picture.

All I can say is the movie works on a technical level. I especially like the actions sequences of the movie. But, the storytelling is not at all original. Director Tony Scott, who made Top Gun 5 years ago, does know how to make energetic action pictures. He certainly knows how to deliver. But, on the storytelling process, he doesn't know how to come up with a fresh story to tell. Yet, I think that is the reason why The Last Boy Scout works. Audiences don't really care about the story. They only care about the action sequences and the stunts. I did have that craving inside of me. I know for a fact that for a movie-goer to be turned on by the thrill of an action movie, one would have to be in the right mood for the movie. I was in the mood to see The Last Boy Scout. I knew that it was going to be a action film from the get-go, but I couldn't really buy most of what the movie had to offer, meaning the story and the plot.

For a movie to work, I have to give The Last Boy Scout 3 stars for the technical aspects for the movie. As I said before, they do work. But, not the story. I guess I'm being too kind. With this being said, I've cut you some slack. ★★★ 3 stars.

When it comes to action stars, they are at first, calm and collected in some scenes in an action movie. Some of those action stars tend to show off their skills like martial arts. But even though they may have that gift of turning the audience with their screen presence, we can sometimes forget that they are playing an character. A character who is essential and important to the movie.

In Above the Law, Steven Seagal is the star of the movie. However, this is his first one. Seagal plays a Chicago cop who was recruited by the CIA in 1969 in Japan. In 1973, he was sent to Vietnam and while there, he witnesses a brutal torture of a Cambodian resident under the spell of a vicious man, (Henry Silva). Seagal's friend advises him to leave Vietnam and go home. 15 years later, Seagal is a Chicago policeman, working with a partner, (Pam Grier), who is retiring in a couple of months. When he learns that a major shipment is going down in Chicago, Seagal's character, Nico Toscani, finds out a cache of explosives. Things get worse after that. Toscani father's church is blown up and it's up to him to find out who is responsible for the bombing. This leads Seagal through a change of pace as he breaks the rule and risks his entire police career by trying to rights the wrongs.

Seagal does an impressive job of playing an main character who is believable. In some scenes, he knows how to act calm and play it straight. When it comes tot he action scenes, Seagal knows how to show off his martial arts skills. Most action actors tend to lost their character by putting too much emphasis on their skills. But not Seagal. He may be different than Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood, but you got to give him credit for what does best. It's a shame that he wouldn't repeat the same thing twice because after he starred in Above the Law, Seagal starred in another film called Hard to Kill and Under Siege. His career then started to take a turn for the worse when he decided to drop out of Hollywood and starred in a number of bad action movies. Those ween't really worthy of his career, but Above the Law certainly shows what Seagal is meant on the big screen.

The supporting cast is also very good. Pam Grier, who was also a major star in the 1970's is very good and sort of surprising to see her starred along aside Seagal. Grier is very convincing as Seagal's partner. She is noticing just how his behavior is getting in the way of his police appearance.

The movie was directed by Andrew Davis, who also directed Code of Silence, which is, perhaps, the best Chuck Norris movie ever made. Davis certainly knows how to make a city story interesting. He photographed Chicago very clearly and very skillfully. When it comes the action scenes in this movie, Davis knows how to step back and let Seagal perform his fighting skills, which is pretty impressive. After he made Above the Law, Andrew Davis directed Seagal again in the 1992 action thriller, Under Siege. According to my perspective, I believe that with the teaming of Seagal and Davis being strong, I think that with the tools they have to make a decent action picture, they certainly do know how to make them exciting, not nauseating. It's rare to find a bonding between actor and director, especially in the action genre. Most action directors now don't really work together to make scenes seem exciting.

With the exception of Seagal's performance, Above the Law has a plot that is sort of complicated if you follow everything very carefully. But as an action movie, it is effective even when Seagal is on the big screen. This movie proves that he can act in character and even, if I dare to say so, out of character. He is that good. ★★★ 3 stars.

The hot rock is a stone that was inherited by many generations in Africa according to a African doctor, (Moses Gunn). However, it's effect is something else. The stone is located inside a measure on display inside a rectangular shaped glass structure. It hasn't been touched ever since. Well... until now.

Taking place in New York City, The Hot Rock is a caper comedy directed by Peter Yates. This was Yates' latest film since his biggest success in Bullitt, which was released 4 years ago. The problem is that Bullitt is a serious crime thriller that took place in San Francisco and dealt with very well detailed characters. The police matter in that was so pure and interesting that at least the viewer had to admired what was on the big screen. The Hot Rock, on the other hand, is perhaps the most unlikely film to be directed by Yates. The story is based on a book written by Donald Westlake, who specializes in writing about the latest adventures of a thief called Dortmunder.

Dortmunder, (Robert Redford), is released from jail and is told by his partner in crime, (George Segal), that an rare African stone is located inside a museum in Manhattan. Knowing this information, Dortmunder refuses to go along with the plan. So, he ensembles a crack team including an loudmouth, (Ron Leibman), an honest criminal, (Paul Sand), who's father, (Zero Mostel), is a lawyer. After the heist goes wrong and one of Redford's guys goes to prison, they realized that the stone was taken by Sand's character who swallowed it. The rest of the movie follows the crack team as they tries to retrieve the diamond so that they can get on with their lives. There's a lot of things that goes wrong while trying to get this tricky gem. First, the boys tries to retrieve it by opening up the sewer line in the jailhouse. Then, Redford threatens to kill Sand if he doesn't tell where the rock is.

All of this is pretty repetitive, but what interests me the most is the way the movie uses its charm to cut through the repeating story. Yes, this is perhaps way different than Yates' other movie Robbery, which was taken seriously. I suppose he is trying to make a effort to break into the comedy genre while still trying to tell a story that involves crime. It does work in this movie, but I still think the performances by Redford and his crew are somehow jaded. It's seems as if these actors are waiting around to get the stone back without having to break out of character.

Of course, there are some funny bits in this movie. My favorite is when Redford threatens to kill Sand and his father by throwing them both down an elevator shaft. You should see the look on Mostel's face when he said that he doesn't have the stone. Out of everything that works in this comedy caper, this scene works completely on its own.

The movie does have other humorous scenes involving Segal trying to steal the gem while Redford and Sand try their very best to hold up the heavy glass casing, trapping Segal inside the display case. That scene looks like it was borrowed from some of the famous 1920's silent comedies. But, the question is, does it worked? Yes, it does. It's rare that The Hot Rock wasn't a big success as Bullitt because maybe the comedy just didn't flow well into the crime matter of the story. The flow does work in this hilarious film and I'll tell you that it would be a whole lot more funnier if they put in more funny bits. That would something else. ★★★ 3 stars.

The Island is a film directed by Michael Bay, who's previous work were Armageddon, Bad Boys 1 and 2, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. His previous movies were good, but not great popcorn action films that made a fortune at the box office. Yet even he can make several duds, too. Pearl Harbor, Armageddon and Bad Boys 2 were examples of overblown, loud, special effects duds. This movie however, has a great beginning, but the problem is that it looks like it was directed by a different filmmaker.

The movie takes place in the futuristic year of 2019, where citizens live underneath the Earth, cutting off their communication to the outside world. The main character of the story, Lincoln Six Echo, (Ewan McGregor), is one of those citizens. His day first starts off with him losing an left shoe. Then, he goes down to the cafeteria, where he is not allowed to eat bacon due to his health record at the cafeteria. He does, however, forms an friendly relationship with a female citizen who lives in this society. Her name is Jordan Two Delta, (Scarlett Johansson). The beginning of the movie tells us that Lincoln has a recurring nightmare about driving a boat in the middle of the ocean and drowning. Of course, the movie does set up an very creepy side to this futuristic world. The one thing this society depends on is the lottery in which the inhabitants of the world can win a trip to go to the Island. But, what is the Island?

McGregor's character soon take his chance to escape from the underground society along with Johansson and soon enough, the two fugitives find themselves venturing out into the outside world. However, they are not accustomed with the new surroundings. Everything seems deserted and barren. Risking his life, Lincoln and Jordan decides to find out the answers by joining with another inhabitant from the underground world, (Steve Bucemi). Bucemi explains to the two that they are clones and since they are part of an genetically engineered society, they have no actual memory of their actual parents. Together, Lincoln and Jordan decides to seek out more answers when they arrive to Los Angeles. Right about there is where The Island goes completely wrong.

The first half of the movie is very well directed with its inside look of this completely dystopian society. The art direction is very well done and I like how the citizens of this world wear different colored outfits to show what kind of identification or identity they are. McGregor and Johansson are good in their roles as the two clones, but sometimes I felt that their dialogue runs a little bit too simplistic. I also love the supporting cast including Steve Bucemi, who helps them get to Los Angeles and also the performance by Djimon Hounsou. He's particularly a good actor in this film. His job is to catch the two fugitives before they tell everyone back underground the truth about the Island.

But, what bothered me is the second half of the movie. This is when Michael Bay steps in. When McGregor and Johansson get to Los Angeles, I felt the movie slow down and came to a screeching halt when the two of them are being chased by Hounsou's goons. Like all of Bay's films, there's is a lot of action sequences. One example is the scene where the two clones hitch a ride in the back of a trailer carrying metal tubing. Throughout that entire scene, the characters are locked into a scene that isn't worth my time or my patience. It almost as if Michael Bay put these two actors on a treadmill and have them run through a series of dodging giant obstacles such as falling building debris, the metal tubing and a whole lot of smashed up cars. Not the least interesting.

The story is perhaps similar to those who've seen other science fiction movies where the protagonists escapes from their dystopian society and exposed the real truth behind all of the corruption. The movie Logan's Run is a perfect example. In that film, the two main characters escaped from their own world and venture into the outside world and sees the obvious difference between these two completely different worlds. Here, it is the same thing. As the special effects go, they are good, but not at all great. The futuristic world of Los Angeles in the year 2019 has been a whole lot more better in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner since it had a dark and depressing atmosphere. In The Island, it isn't even interesting or good enough.

I guess Michael Bay had a very good movie going for him, I imagine. But, the fact that his over-the-top action sequences get in the way of a predictable and eye-opening story that doesn't work. I know that Michael Bay isn't the best director of the action genre, but I can't give him the credit of putting in a mindless and loud action sequence. If The Island kept going with its story about human cloning and ethics, then maybe it would've been great. I really love to see more movies about human cloning. I know that they made a decent one called The 6th Day with Arnold Schwarznegger, but I am still waiting to see a serious science fiction that really challenges the audience toe explore the world of human cloning, not highway accidents. ★★ 1/2 2 1/2 stars.

Taglined, "They're young... they're in love...and they kill people.", Bonnie and Clyde blew open the theater doors of America when it was first released in 1967. It is, without a doubt, the best American film I've seen in a long time. When the movie first begins with sepia tone photographs of the real Bonnie and Clyde and also the Barrow gang, I knew that I was in the hands of a great filmmaker.

Faye Dunaway plays Bonnie Parker. Warren Beatty plays Clyde Barrow. The year is 1930. When we first meet the two, Clyde tries to steal an nearby car that is parked near Bonnie's house. Looking out the window, Bonnie notices the stranger and set her eyes on the young man while staring at him out the window of her home. At first, their relationship starts to develops slowly as we learned that Bonnie works as a waitress in Texas. But the thing is, she doesn't know Clyde's line of work. After witnessing Clyde holds up an general store in town, the two decides to go on the run.

Buck Barrow, (Gene Hackman), and his wife, Blanche, (Estelle Parsons), soon catch up with the two lovers and after several hold-ups and robberies, they start to make a name of themselves. They were the Barrow gang. Clyde was the leader. But even though they thought that knocking off banks were their specialty, the law followed after them, trying to catch them. The law couldn't catch these two even if they were cornered by them. As time goes on however, the two lovers/killers realize that their joyride will soon be over before they know it. They can sense it. They don't when their day will come. But, it will happened.

When first released in 1967, the movie was met with an uproar of controversy when film critics and even movie audiences said that the movie glamorized the couple. Well, I agree to this statement. The movie romanticized their account on what they did during the great Depression. What I saw was basically, two juvenile delinquents trying outrun the law and without giving away the ending, the message soon becomes clear. For a while, the two outlaws were rebels as portrayed in the movie. Similar to other movies like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch, Bonnie and Clyde tells us an true American story rather than telling us a routine story about two outlaws on the run. It's more than that. The movie does a great job of showing us what violence can do to individuals. It has a very strong moral argument to tell us.

The one thing that did hit me was the beautiful cinematography by Burnett Guffey, who won a Oscar for his photography for this movie. There are a lot of beautiful shots of a wheat field where Bonnie runs around in and another fabulous scene where Bonnie meets her mother and her family. The way that scene is shot shows a dream-like sequence where pure innocence can be lost completely. Director Arthur Penn illustrates a time where people could do whatever they, but were still part of the American system. That kind of representation is really fascinating because during the 1960's, that kind of freedom was cut short by the ongoing Vietnam War. Some critics and movie-goers might think that Bonnie and Clyde is an allegory on the Vietnam War. I have high doubts about that symbolism, but it's true to other movies that came after this one.

Beatty, Dunaway Hackman and especially Estelle Parsons are absolutely amazing in this movie. Their star power is very important and top-notch. Not only because they played believable characters, but they are so fragile in this movie. The fact that they know that their joyride will soon end is something remarkable. It is truly great to see actors playing characters that we care about even though they were criminals. In fact, that's why Bonnie and Clyde works so well. The fact that these characters are so true and young that it's appeal to the audience is something that captures all of us in the movies. Think about it. What would happened if Beatty wasn't Clyde Barrow? What would happened if Dunaway wasn't Bonnie Parker? Without those performers, this movie would not have been made without the direction, the cinematography and the actors themselves.

After seeing Bonnie and Clyde, I started to say to myself that the tail- end of the 60's were very important to American cinema at that time. Movies like this one, and also Blow-Up, The Wild Bunch, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Persona are one of the reason movies said something about us. They can be controversial at first, but the powerful impact of what movies can do do people is something special. It's a shame to say that today's movies are basically niche and contrived with plot devices, predictable endings, weak writing and overstuffed acting. If you were to take out all of today's movies and replaced with movies from the 50's, 60's, 70's and the 1980's, you would definitely see a major contradiction. Many people today would not go to see these movies if it wasn't for the makers.

Over time, Bonnie and Clyde continues to shock audiences with it's portrayal of on-screen violence and glamorized crime matter. But even to an artistic point of view, this movie can be studied for its craftsmanship. It's beautifully told through picturesque photography of the Midwest and its message is one that should be talk about. An amazing piece of vivid movie-making. ★★★★ 4 stars.

Taxi Driver is a film that really shows us what American Cinema was all about. At a time where movies were made for entertainment, some challenged movie-goers with some of the most controversial subject matter ever to be put on film. Many of today well known directors were starting out big with their first feature length movie. But, Martin Scorsese was one of those directors who really captured what the 1970's were all about. He shows us all of it in this film.

Travis Bickle, (Robert De Niro), is an loner who spends most of his time prowling the streets of New York City at night. An Vietnam veteran, he narrates the story with a flat, eerie voice that somehow gives the movie an very dark tone to it. "All of the animals come out at night", he says. "Someday a real rain'll come and wash all this scum off the streets." Suffering from insomnia, he also spends some of his time watching porno movies and living in an apartment building, where welfare seems to cover everything. One day, he spies on a woman, (Cybill Shepard), who is working at a campaign headquarters. At first, Bickle develops an crush on her and even asks her out on a date. But, she rejects him because of his habit of seeing dirty movies. Isolating himself from society, Bickle starts to tense up and decides that the only way to strike back is with violence. In one of the most memorable scenes in the movie, Bickle practices his intimidation by talking to a wall and says, "Are you talking to me? Talking to me? Well, I'm the only one here." By the end of the movie, Bickle's violent behavior and actions reaches a bloody climax when he gets his chance.

The movie is more of a character study between different personalities. Travis and the woman he loves come from different backgrounds. Screenwriter Paul Schrader illustrates these characters by experimenting with each others likes and feelings. But toward a more thought-provoking point, the movie showcases an long-lasting argument between an dream and a reality. The woman that Travis loves is shown to be an angelic figure, one who's blessed. But, when mental deterioration crosses with her presence, nothing is ever forgiving. From there on, Bickle puts himself through intense training to avenge society. His thirst of violence intensifies when he goes to a gun dealer and buys several guns off of him.

The cast of the movie is outstanding. Not only De Niro steals the show, but the movie has a strong supporting cast including Jodie Foster, as a teenage hooker who befriends Travis, Albert Brooks, as the man who's interested in Cybill Shepard, but dislikes Travis and also Harvey Keitel and Peter Boyle stars in this masterpiece as well.

Bernard Herrmann creates a strong and resounding score that has a jazzy sense to it. The score is perhaps the most important piece in the movie because Herrmann is master of scoring movies that makes the film more atmospheric with its grimy look of New York City. The sound of the score illustrates the mind of Travis Bickle. When we first see him, his eyes curiously looks around while exhaust fumes fill the screen. Even the red tint on the neon lit signs makes the setting of the movie looks like a hell. Several times through the entire movie, the color red symbolizes a world where hope is not present, but Travis' inner demons are hovering all over him. Like his score in Vertigo, Herrmann makes an hypnotizing sense of insomnia, alienation and isolation.

Robert De Niro has never given an better performance of his career. His performance in Taxi Driver is an template of what movie acting is all about. When he grins for the first time in the movie, we get the notion that his appearance is rather frightening, but very mysterious. The way he grins by giving that eerie smile makes Travis Bickle believable. We know from the beginning of the movie that he's not a hero even though the people around him praised him for what he did to Iris. As for Jodie Foster, she doesn't glamorizes her role as Iris. She is trying to get out of the city, but she needs Travis to help her. That on-screen performance is something to look for. Her performance is an essential part of the whole movie.

Martin Scorsese does a outstanding job directing this movie. He really knows New York City. He knows how to hook the viewer and take them on a journey through the rough streets of every neighborhood in the city. His way of making characters into sinners is something mesmerizing. The shots of the rain wetting the streets. The way the windshield wipers wipes off the rain on Travis' cab when he travels through the night. The symbolism of what Scorsese shows you is something to study on. You have to pay attention to every speck of detail he gives you. Even when the characters stop to chat for a while, pay attention to how they talk to one another. That's what makes it such a great film. It's movies like Taxi Driver that captures a time not long forgotten, but long gone. Both the cinema world and to the world of the 1970's. ★★★★ 4 stars.

When The Fifth Element was released in 1997, it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, where it was selected as the opening film. By the end of the year, the movie grossed over $263,920,180, making it the 9th highest-grossing film of the year. After seeing The Fifth Element, I was surprised to realize that the entire story and ideas came from an teenage boy. Who's that teenage boy you might ask? It came from the film's director and writer, Luc Besson. Besson came up with the story while he was in high school. As a movie, it is more than meet the eye.

The story begins with a text, saying, "Egypt, 1914." Aliens called Mondoshawans come to Earth to collect a weapon that can be use to defeat a Great Evil that appears every 5,000 years. The weapon consists of four stones. Each has its classification of elements. All four stones revolved around a fifth element, which is represented in the form of a human. Before leaving Earth, the aliens promise that they will return the four stones in time to stop the Great Evil.

The movie then fast forwards to the 23rd century, in the year 2263, where New York City cab driver, Korben Dallas, (Bruce Willis), is an ordinary everyday man that sort of like the kind of guy Willis played in Die Hard, sort to think. Anyway, the Great Evil appears space in the form of a giant black ball of fire. Vito Cornelius, (Ian Holm), informs the president the background history of the Great Evil. As the Mandoshawans head to Earth, another race of aliens, the bad kind, the Mangalores, who work for Zorg, (Gary Oldman), decides to shoot down the Mandoshawans' ship. Even though the stones weren't on board, there is one thing that does survive. The hand of the fifth element. Scientists then create an beautiful alien named Leeloo, (Milla Jovovich). But Leeloo escapes and finds herself falling into Dallas' cab. After a rocky start, Dallas realizes that he must protect Leeloo from danger because she is the fifth element, as we learn later on in the movie.

Now, you might think that The Fifth Element is a very bad science- fiction movie, right? Well, it isn't. In fact, I really enjoyed this movie because of the film's amazing and dazzling special effects. In fact, I like to point out that this the first science-fiction movie I've seen where the future is not at all depressing or screwed up in any way. I like this kind of future. I would definitely get lost in this kind of world. The way the colors are used in the movie and the way different shapes are used is something stunning. I really enjoyed the fact that the movie had time to stop for humor because there are a number of funny moments that are in this movie. Most of them come from Chris Tucker, who plays an radio DJ, who is very very eccentric. He really generates much of the movie's funny moments. At certain times, the gears do shift once in awhile. But, it did worked. The cinematography of the movie is very good and I also admired the costume design, which was done by Jean Paul Gaultier.

However, even though I'm given a lot of credit to the technical aspects of the movie and to the story, the movie does run on a little too long. Clocking in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, the movie shouldn't been edited into a more tighter time space. I would definitely cut back on some of the opening scene of the movie because I felt it did go on for a little while. But that aside, I did have a good time watching this movie. I believed in the story that Besson had to offered although the most interesting thing about his story is that it isn't like Star Wars. When I mean is that in the Star Wars movies, there are a lot of ideas and pieces that are burrowed from other movies. In a way, those pictures are like puzzles. However, The Fifth Element isn't like Star Wars. There isn't anything burrowed from other movies in this film, but what we have is an original idea and story that comes from an man who grew up to become an very well-detailed virtuoso. There's a lot of money that was spend on the making of this movie, but Besson sure knows how to spend it. This is one ride that you would like to take again. ★★★ 3 stars.

For several years, Sylvester Stallone had been in one turkey after another. Before he starred in Cliffhanger, he starred in a number of flops such as Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot and Oscar. For some reason, Stallone somehow lost his way in the movie world and got stuck making forgettable flops like those two movies. My best guess is that either his next film will be a hit or a miss. And to tell you the truth, Cliffhanger is definitely an hit, an huge hit for the box office.

Stallone plays an rescue mountain climber who, in the beginning of the movie, is trying to rescue his friend, Hal Tucker, (Michael Rooker), and his girlfriend from an mountain. Unfortunately, the rescue attempt doesn't go smoothly as the clip on Rooker's girlfriend snaps and slips through the harness. She falls to her death down an gorge, leaving both Rooker and Stallone, devastated.

Months later, Stallone is living by himself, away from his other friend, played by Janine Turner. Stallone is scarred for life because of what happened months ago with the death of Rooker's girlfriend death. However, he continues to climbs mountains anyway.

The centerpiece of the story involves an group of villains, lead by John Lithgow. Their plan is to rob an U.S. Treasury plane with three cases holding millions of dollars. Their high-altitude plan goes completely wrong when their plane crash lands in the Rocky Mountains, leaving the bad guys, stranded in the snowy wilderness. Seeking help, they radioed help from the local mountain rescue center. Soon enough, Stallone and Rooker finds themselves caught up with the bad guys as they are being used by the villains to help find their stolen loot in the Mountains.

The great thing about Cliffhanger is it's mountain climbing scenes. I actually started to believe that these actors were really climbing an mountain, instead of climbing an fake mountain that was build on a studio set. These are real mountains, all right. With that being said, the action sequences are well directed although I had a hard time believing in the way the bad guys were able to get the three cases into their plane while trying to fly their plane through the high altitude. Most of the action sequences in Cliffhanger are so energetic and sometimes scary due to the fact that some of the bad guys fall off the mountain. And when these characters are leaning over the edge of the mountains in some of the scenes in the movie, I was actually afraid that they would fall.

The movie was directed by Renny Harlin, who directed the second Die Hard movie and he does a very good job creating an stunning visual sensation with the beautiful shots of the canyons and gorges. The movie was shot in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and the use of the locations in the movie are very useful as a setting for a movie like this. I couldn't really picture myself climbing those mountains by hanging off the side of it. For those who know what I am talking about, it pretty scary.

Stallone is okay as the lead character. He tries his best to not only play an action hero, but an flawed one, too. The best performance comes from John Lithgow, who plays the leader of the group. His British accent and his ways of taking people out of his plan is very sadistic, making him the perfect villain. He is maybe different from the villain in Harlin's last film, Die Hard 2, but Lithgow does a very good job playing the bad guy who doesn't take chances.

With the exception of Cliffhanger, I could only say that Stallone is mild in this movie. He isn't really that great, but at least give him credit for trying to become an flawed character. That's important because we've seen Stallone play heroes before like Rocky Balboa or John Rambo. Those characters are like superhuman characters that are meant to win in the end of the movie. Here, it turns an different direction. It's interesting to see him tackle this kind of role because it's surprising and interesting. As for the action sequences and the mountain scenes, those scenes will have you admiring the breath- taking views of the Rockies. I will say though that this movie might even give you vertigo because of the scenes involving climbing especially the beginning of the movie which is clearly authentic. ★★★ 3 stars.

Deliverance is based on James Dickey's bestseller about four men embarked on an dangerous and violent canoe trip through an raging river. Dickey states in his novel that one day, the American wilderness will soon expired because of the technology that we have today. He states that the rivers and streams in the wild is very useful to our environment. Even after Dickey's passing, we still today struggle through this hardship. The fact that in today's world, the environment is still hanging in the balance.

The movie version of the bestseller is a perfectly great example of his theory. Four Atlanta businessmen, Ed, (Jon Voight), Lewis, (Burt Reynolds), Drew, (Ronny Cox), and Bobby, (Ned Beatty), are spending their weekend canoeing down an Georgia river that will soon turn into a lake, thanks to the local power company damming the river. The four men all come from different backgrounds and perspectives. Ed is a mild- mannered everyday man who has a wife, a kid and a profession he enjoys. Lewis is a outdoors-man. He is very concerned by the fact that the river is turning into a lake. He even has his philosophy about machines taking over the land that America sits on. Drew is a very deeply moral person. He doesn't seem to bother anybody since he spends most of his time playing his guitar. Bobby is a lovable, sometimes clumsy person who seems to have a big heart. In the beginning of their canoe trip, the group tries to communicate with the locals by telling them that they want someone to drive their cars down to Aintry, which is the closest town near the river. The folks, however, are not very friendly. Some are inbred, while other suffered from the living conditions.

After settling in, the boys decides to canoe down the river and along the way, they run into a pair of backwoods men. One of them is a mountain man, (Bill McKinney), who turns the movie into a very sinister adventure film. As the canoe trip becomes more and more dangerous to handle, the boys find themselves in constant danger after committing an murder in the woods since one of the mountain man raped Bobby.

The cinematography of the movie is very beautifully done by Vilmos Zsigmond. He does know how to photograph unfake shots of the mountains and especially the white water. The whole movie is very well- photographed since the movie has a very deceiving look of the wilderness. It also as if there's something evil lurking under something beautiful. It always nice to see a movie where there's an authentic look and feel of nature itself. Even though some people never went canoeing down a river, this is a perfect example what could happen when you travel through the rapids and the jagged rocks that are in the river.

One of the best scenes in Deliverance is when Drew and a local boy feud against each other with their musical instruments. Drew is strumming his guitar, peacefully. The local boy, with a very dark look on his stoned face, plucks on one of his strings on his banjo. This scene is famously called "Dueling Banjos", since the music involves shows the contrasts of city life and country life. Of course, that is very significant in the movie. But never done quite like this before. The attitude that the boys have on the locals is another example of the city life/country life contrast. Lewis seems to taunt the locals by instigating them. But, even with his wisecracks, Lewis doesn't seem to realize that he could wound up being hurt if he doesn't close his mouth.

Ever since Deliverance was released, people had mixed feelings toward the way the locals were represented in the movie. Billy Redden, who plays the banjo player, said that he enjoyed working on the movie and said that it is just a movie. Yet some locals thinks the movie is an insult to those who live in deep Georgia. In my opinion, a movie is a movie. I doubt that the makers of this movie were creating a land that was slipping away at the time. In fact, there are a lot of ideas that Deliverance has to offer.

Several critics stated that the movie is an allegory of the Vietnam War. To some, that is a very interesting point because according to Lewis, the boys, not knowing that they going into uncharted territory, are raping the land. They have no idea what they are about to get into. That statement can be made about the ongoing Vietnam War that was going on at that time. And besides, the unforgettable climax of the movie is a example of what the American soldiers experienced while coming to America. The fact that Ed, suffers from what happened on the river. Not only Ed, but Lewis, Bobby and even Drew.

Out of all of the movies that Burt Reynolds starred in, this is his best. This movie is long before he starred in Smokey and the Bandit in 1977. His performance in Deliverance is great and also interesting because you think that they would hired an different actor to play Lewis. But, Reynolds is outstanding. He doesn't grandstand or overact his part. He plays Lewis very sharp. Jon Voight, who at the time was struggling to become a serious actor is very well-casted in this movie. To me, Voight plays Ed in a very mild-mannered way. He is very open- minded especially in a scene where the boys talk about what they are going to do with the body. Voight in that scene holds himself back while the others try to figure out what to do. The two lesser known actors, Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty, did a very good job. Beatty is perfect as Bobby, the clumsy and always cheerful businessman.

★★★★ 4 stars.

Suspense. It's the thing that tantalizes the viewers. Suspense is build on layers of tension and dread. Haven't you had that kind of feeling while watching a thriller? I bet you have. That is what thrillers are all about. The feeling of something jumping out in front of you or a very creepy feeling running through your mind. Your heart may race, but you must not take your eyes off the screen. You wouldn't want to fall asleep while watching a thriller because you'll miss much of it. Blood Simple is one of those movies.

The story is centered around four characters. Each of the four characters all have different perspectives. There's Julian, (Dan Hedaya). Julian is a sleazy saloon owner who thinks his wife is cheating on him. Abby, (Frances McDormand), is his wife who's seeing another man. Ray, (John Getz), is the man she's seeing. An private investigator, (M. Emmet Walsh), is also brought into the story. All of the four characters are very essential in the plot of this movie. But to tell you the truth, this plot is very complicated to follow. Which is why I won't revealed much of what's going on. That's one of the biggest surprises that happened to me while watching Blood Simple.

The feeling of dread really did give me the creeps because of the way the characters are trying to figure what to do in this plot. They're not your average movie characters. These are people who don't know what's going to happened next. Most movies try to get a cheap thrill out of the audience by inserting standard movie characters into a very routine plot. Blood Simple skips over all that.

This is a very promising movie that does hold your attention while the viewer is gripping onto their chair while watching it unfold. What's brilliant is the way the cinematography focuses on the rural aspect of the setting. The movie does a great of creating a visually stunning world of Texas. They are a lot of great visuals that I'll always remembered. Dust creeping underneath a door. Blood dripping onto a hardwood floor. The way the shadows are arranged at night. My favorite visual out of all of them is the freshly plowed fields that are used in the movie. Credited the film's cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld who would later move on with other big projects such as Men in Black in 1997.

Blood Simple was directed by Joel Coen and was written by both his brother, Ethan and himself. To me, the Coen brothers did an amazing job with the making of this movie. I don't have anything bad to say to them because of what I saw on the screen. Not only is this a very good- looking picture, but it is very well-written. Of course, it would be hard to write serious dialogue without having to overact. That what makes them such great movie-makers. They know how to create a visually stunning world by using much of what is there.

The plot of Blood Simple is not easy to follow since the film includes several double crosses and twists. But, the most interesting aspect of all is the fact that it doesn't rely on formula. Most thrillers today are filled with the ordinary set-up. Shootouts, car chases, confrontations and explosions. Not here. This movie works like a well- oiled machine. It held my attention, yes, but it also made me hold onto my seat. I couldn't resist it. It's that kind of feeling that makes thrillers so good.

M. Emmet Walsh, who is a character actor, does an amazing job of playing the P.I. who's job is to spy on the cheating couple. Even with that cowboy hat on, he brings an very sinister feeling to the movie. In one particular scene in the movie, he tries to take a picture of them together, but he can't help it to creep into the house and out of the house without making a noise. Also, the music by Carter Burwell is great especially in that scene because it creates a sense of suspense that the audience is thriving for. We're hanging onto the seat of our chairs while everything starts to fall apart.

Frances McDormand, who plays Abby, is very good as the woman who is stuck in this murder plot. You might think that she is going to scream her head off throughout the entire movie. But, she doesn't. She knows how to keep a straight face and act in a way that doesn't require screaming or hollering. She's innocent and we, as the audience can buy that. The fact that in most thrillers, the actress is usually screaming throughout the entire movie. Once again, Blood Simple skips over the clichés.

Blood Simple is a classic example of the neo-noir genre. I enjoyed watching these kind of movies because even though the plot is twisted, it leaves you something to think about. In the case of this movie, I had something to think about. It really did touch me through my nerves and my fears. As for the Coen brothers, this is their opening into the movie world. Welcome to Hollywood. ★★★★ 4 stars.

When I first heard of Raising Arizona, I was 8 years old. I was spending a weekend with my dad and it was on a Friday night. Usually when I see a movie for the first time on television, I either direct my attention to the screen to see what it is or direct my attention to something that I was doing. I came in right in the middle of the movie and I didn't know what it was about and I certainly didn't understand the concept behind it. But, I do remember laughing and having a good time while watching this movie. Now, looking back on it, it still makes me laugh even harder and longer.

The story centers around a convict/loser named H.I. McDunnough, (Nicholas Cage). His friends called him Hi. For the last several years, Hi has been robbing convenience stores and ending up in the slammer. After three times, Hi decides to go straight. He seeks the attraction of a pretty cop named Edwina "Ed" McDunnough, (Holly Hunter). Soon after, Hi and Ed get married. But, there's just one problem. They want to raise a family. So, the couple decides to keep trying. But according to a local gynecologist, Ed is infertile, meaning that she can't have kids. According to Hi's perspective, he can't "plant his seed" into Ed. Hopeless, the couple decides to steal one of the Arizona quints. One night, Hi and Ed steal one of the quints from a very wealthy businessman, (Sam McMurray), who owns a furniture store in Arizona.

As the movie progresses, the humor starts to kick in when the local police and the F.B.I. conduct a manhunt on the missing quint. Meanwhile, two prisoners, (John Goodman and William Forsythe), escaped from prison and take shelter in Hi's home. But, the two prisoners want Hi to go along with them to pull off a heist. While that is going, another character comes walking into the story. An deranged and hellish lone motorcycle driver, (Randall 'Tex' Cobb), enters the story through Hi's dreams and his job is to find the quint and find the people who stole him.

You can see that the movie is quite ambitious for its own kind. To tell you the truth, it is. This is the first comedy being made by the always entertaining movie-making duo, Joel and Ethan Coen. Their movies never ceased to amaze me. They have really carved out a reputation of movie- making with their witty scripts and their zany approach to a story. What surprises me is that this movie is actually their first comedy. Before the Coen brothers made Raising Arizona, they wrote and direct a very dark and violent neo-noir film, Blood Simple, which was released three earlier. This is quite surprising because Blood Simple was a very serious and sometimes bloody film that had a lot of twists and turns in it.

Here, it's a change of pace. How they were to pull this one off is something that strikes me dumb. Watching the movie, I found myself laughing more than ever since I now understand the themes involved. One of the funniest scenes that I saw and it is the most significant one is when Cage's character robs a convenience store and disguised himself by putting pantyhose on his head. This plan doesn't since his wife leaves him behind, having him deal with the trigger-happy clerk and the police. The chase goes all over the place with Cage being chased by the clerk, the police and a pack of dogs. Even in the middle of the chase, Cage is even given a lift with an screaming hayseed driver. The way the chase sequence is shot makes it seems that the chase is being played as a cartoon. Maybe that's why the scene made me laugh the first time around. It's that sense of wacko humor that generates a laugh out of the audience. Not only the film's humor made me laugh, but toward the end of the movie, there's a bittersweet sense that ties the movie together with the characters trying hard to have a family.

The writing by the brothers is very funny and even the performances by Cage, Hunter, Goodman and even Forsthye are excellent. I did believe that Nicholas Cage was really Hi. The fact that he sports a mustache and a dopey appearance when he is getting his mugshot done is very funny and also interesting.

I'm not really a big fan of comedies because most of them are done pretty badly and never seem to hit me with their humor. That is true in today's movies. In today's movies, you can get away with everything. You can get a kick out of a audience that admired slapstick humor or bathroom humor. I understand that perspective. But, I enjoyed watching comedies that have funny dialogue in it. i believe that if you can make an audience laugh out loud with the dialogue, then that can be funny alone. The Coen brothers know how to generate a laugh out of the audience with their style of writing.

Even in the today world, the Coen brothers are still going strong. Last year, they written and directed the Oscar-nominated picture, Inside Llewyn Davis. The brothers seem to really be shifting gears according to the genres. They can frightened you and tantalizes you with Blood Simple. They can make you laugh with Raising Arizona. They can compel you with Miller's Crossing. And they can jolt you with The Big Lebowski. I wonder what they're going to do next. ★★★ 1/2 3 1/2 stars.

I do not understand why anybody would want to make this movie. I just don't. I clearly don't understand why the distributors decided to released this movie. Of course, there is such a thing as debauchery in the movies. But after seeing Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters, I had my doubts. This is not a criticism. It is a considerable warning.

For those who don't know the story by now, about 7 years in 2007, there was a hoax going on in the city of Boston. Residents were noticing small neon lit pictures of one of the characters from the late night TV show, Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Some of the residents were frightened because they thought it was a bomb. People in and around Boston were terrified. After the debacle, news reporters stated that the creators of the show did this hoax. It was not a laughing matter. In the case of the movie, it was also not at all, an laughing matter.

The LED placards were used as a guerrilla marketing advertising campaign for the movie. Who in the world thought this was a great idea? Haven't the creators of the show realized the amount of trouble they gotten into? I bet they didn't because to be honest with you, I would sure like to know. As for the movie, it isn't even entertaining let alone the controversy.

The plot of the movie is very pointless since we follow the main characters of the show, Meatwad, Master Shake and Frylock through a very bizarre odyssey as they escaped from Egypt and stumbled into uninteresting and very unfunny characters. The story of the movie isn't at all well-written as it weave completely in and out of the movie. By the end of the movie, I couldn't care less what happened to the Aqua Teens or any of the other supporting characters.

I have seen the TV show myself. In fact, I have always enjoyed the TV show whenever it comes on television on Adult Swim, which the opposite program block that airs right after Cartoon Network is done airing its daytime cartoon shows for kids. The show does involves some of the oddest and mostly absurd humor I have every seen in adult animation. The humor varies from slapstick to sometimes scatological to gags. But compared to the movie, that's not saying a whole lot.

Watching this movie was indeed an unpleasant experience. I have never felt more angry and furious during the entire watching of this feature. If they are going to write a feature-length movie about these characters, I would clean up the script first of all, and then come up with a brilliant idea that can be enjoyable. Maybe have the Aqua Teens be in a situation where they are endangered. The opening introduction involves an parody in which they make fun of the refreshment counter advertisements that was big in the 1950's through the 1970's. I don't know why the makers did this. Maybe they thought that it was funny to satirizes the refreshment counter ads. But, even that didn't cheer me up.

I can't help it to say that it is the worst film of 2007. No doubt about that. There's no getting around a year where they were other bad movies to put on my worst 10 list. But Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters is very high on my list. It definitely deserved to be number one on my worst 10 list of 2007. Maybe I would probably stick with the TV series.

It's movies like Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters are the reasons why very bad movies should be cut up and used as ukulele picks. Zero Stars.

As a boy, I was always impressed and amused by the movies that I saw. Some of them bring back memories of me watching whatever kids movie that made me excited. But as time goes on, those memories are still embedded in my memory bank. And sometimes, an fellow movie-goer can sometimes get teary-eyed by going down memory lane. Some of those movies do hold up well. Some of them, well.... get lost in my mind.

Take Flubber, for example. Flubber is the kind of movie that I enjoyed as a young boy. But, I've grown up over the years and to tell you the truth, it doesn't hold up for me.

The story was originally from the 1961 comedy film, "The Absent-Minded Professor". In that film, Fred MacMurray played the lead character. MacMurray's character was a complete nut case who invents a new and improved substance that can bounces off the floor due the amount of energy stored inside. The substance was named Flubber, due to the fact that it is flying rubber. The absent-minded professor tried to convince his colleagues that flubber can saved their university from going into shambles.

Here, Robin Williams plays the absent-minded professor. Professor Phillip Brainard, (who could be a distant relative or son of the original Absent-Minded Professor), is in the process of creating a new substance that can raise money to save the college from closure. Brainard's colleague is a flying robot called Weebo. Brainard soon discovers flubber and from the start of it, Flubber doesn't want to settle down.

The story deepens as Brainard tries to convince the college president and his fiancée, (Marcia Gay Harden), but it doesn't turn out the way he wants it to go. He even expands the idea of flubber by converting the substance into a liquid and then into a white cream. In one particular scene in the movie, Brainard tries out the flubber by spraying it onto a basketball that can bounces as twice as much as a regular basketball. The idea even becomes more popular when it spreads onto a basketball team. Their sneakers are also sprayed with flubber, making them bounce more higher and faster than ever.

There are, however, bad guys in Flubber, and their job in the movie is to try to steal the substance from Brainard. But, to tell you the truth, you seen these bad guys before in a movie. And it's no surprise that these characters are ripped right out of Home Alone. It's ironic because the script for the movie was written by John Hughes.

I don't know what happened to John Hughes back then. He started off his career with good movies like Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Planes, Trains and Automobiles. But, after the big success of Home Alone, I believe Hughes dropped his pen and started depending on recycled material from his other movies to substitute in his scripts. Recycled material soon resulted in forgettable movies like Dutch, Career Opportunities and Curly Sue. Bad career move. And I supposed Flubber can be included in this specific category of forgettable John Hughes' movies.

Robin Williams looks as if he was practically on speed throughout the entire movie. At certain times throughout this movie, I thought he overacted as being the main character of the story. The slapstick did not work this time around since it didn't make me laugh the first time I saw it as a young boy. The flubber wasn't even worth my time since there wasn't anything special about the green goo. In fact, when Flubber soon shows up, the movie goes downhill from there with the green gelatin bouncing around the movie, breaking windows and panes of glass. I realize that after the movie was over, I forgot how many times Flubber went through a window or a pane of glass. It was very tiresome and boring the second time around.

Is there anything else I forgot? I don't think so. Except to say that I won't be looking forward to seeing this movie since this is one of those kids' movies that I like to forget. But, don't worry. There's plenty of other good or great kids' movies that I saw in my childhood. Flubber wasn't one of them. ★ 1/2 1 1/2 star.